U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAORACLE AMERICA, INC.,Plaintiff,v.GOOGLE INC.,Defendant./ No. C 10-03561 WHA
ORDER REGARDINGBILL OF COSTS
Final judgment was entered in this patent-infringement action in June 2012. Now,defendant Google Inc. seeks costs (excluding attorney’s fees) of approximately four milliondollars. This amount is largely attributable to expert fees by court-appointed expert Dr. JamesKearl, and fees for electronic document discovery by third-party vendor, FTI Consulting, Inc.For reasons stated below, Google’s request is
OOGLE IS THE
“Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs — otherthan attorney’s fees — should be allowed to the prevailing party.” F
P. 54(d).Federal Circuit authority governs the determination of which party was the prevailing party in allpatent actions, regardless of whether there were also non-patent claims asserted.
Manildra Mill.Corp. v. Ogilvie Mills, Inc.
, 76 F.3d 1178, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Even if the action results in amixed judgment, the district court must nonetheless pick one side as the “prevailing party” forpurposes of taxing costs.
Shum v. Intel Corp.
, 629 F.3d 1360, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1241 Filed09/04/12 Page1 of 5